DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on December 27, 2012, 03:55:57 AM

Title: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on December 27, 2012, 03:55:57 AM
Report: GOP senators won’t confirm Kerry until Clinton testifies on Benghazi

Republican senators will refuse to confirm Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., as Secretary of State until the nation’s current top diplomat, Hillary Clinton, testifies about her handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack.

“The Senate is expected to take up Kerry’s nomination in early January, but multiple Republican senators have already said they won’t agree to a vote on Kerry’s nomination until Clinton testifies about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi,” The Cable’s Josh Rogin notes.

Clinton backed out of testifying at a congressional hearing last week after fainting and suffering a concussion. She was the first cabinet-level official to acknowledge that terrorists played a role in the assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

“For some time, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb and other groups have launched attacks and kidnappings from northern Mali into neighboring countries,” Clinton said during a United Nations meeting in New York on September 26. “Now, with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions. And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions underway in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi,” (emphasis added).

A week earlier, though, Clinton was content to have people such as the father of Tyrone Woods — the former Navy Seal killed during the attack on Benghazi — believe that an anti-Islam Youtube video was the occasion for the assault, which took place on the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

“Well, this is what Hillary did,” Mr. Woods said of his meeting with Clinton immediately following the assault. “She came over and, you know, she did the same thing, separately came over and talked with me.  I gave her a hug, shook her hand, and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all.  She mentioned that thing about, ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.’ That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”

Hopefully she's feeling all better, now (http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-gop-senators-wont-confirm-kerry-until-clinton-testifies-on-benghazi/article/2516877#.UNv-eG-unuF)
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 27, 2012, 12:16:54 PM
Dumb shits abound among the idiot GOP
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on December 27, 2012, 01:12:01 PM
Yea, as if you wouldn't be demanding Secretary Rice's head on a platter, much less simply provide testimony as head of the State Dept, concluded to have significantly screwed up in the whole Benghazi debacle. 
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 27, 2012, 01:50:59 PM
Look, mommie!

Another dumb shit!
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on December 27, 2012, 02:40:22 PM
Another brilliant rhetort from our supposed language "professor"
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 27, 2012, 03:38:26 PM
Read what you posted about heads on plates. You make no sense. It is just more inane gibberish.

You will remain ignorant forever.

Most people have eaten things smarter than you.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on December 27, 2012, 04:38:46 PM
You, a language professor, have never heard the rhetorical phrase head on a platter??  Seriously??

Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 28, 2012, 02:09:02 AM
I have indeed heard the expression, but your use of it makes zero sense. This is a minor matter, and the only reason the idiot Republican'ts are making a big deal of it is that they want to give Prettyboy Rubio a chance to show off for the teabaggers.

I fail to see why I would demand any bloody thing, or why you would assume that I would. You make no sense.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on December 28, 2012, 03:03:19 AM
I have indeed heard the expression,

Well then what's the problem??


but your use of it makes zero sense.

It made perfect sense, as in its rhetorical use.  When someone says "off with their head", unless its an jihadist judge, it's usually a figurative term.  When you're foaming at the mouth, in your vitriolic rants aimed at Republicans and conservatives, the figurative term as in expecting you to demand someone's head on a platter, if they had been in charge of the agency that was directly involved in allowing the 1st murdered ambassador in 30years to occur under their watch, makes 100% sense.  Just because you don't agree, doesn't make it any less relevant


   This is a minor matter, and the only reason the idiot Republican'ts are making a big deal of it is that they want to give Prettyboy Rubio a chance to show off for the teabaggers.

Wow....let's just throw the kitchen sink in with that tangent.  You forgot to add NRA, racists, Bush & Hitler, since that would have made just as much sense as referencing Replucants, Rubio and teabaggers     :o

Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 29, 2012, 03:04:23 PM
There is absolutely no justification for denying the nomination of Kerry because of some stupid committee. This is just annoying grandstanding by fools.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Plane on December 29, 2012, 11:24:44 PM
Clinton must testify.

What elese should be done to encourage her complyance?

By the way ,just getting Kerry out of the senate is almost worth the price.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: BT on December 29, 2012, 11:46:32 PM
There is absolutely no justification for denying the nomination of Kerry because of some stupid committee. This is just annoying grandstanding by fools.

There is no doubt that GOP can't stop the confirmation. But they certainly can delay it. It's all part of the process.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 30, 2012, 02:17:14 AM
No one questions the ability of the Republican'ts to act up like a bunch of hooligans. They are assholes, and can be depended on to act like assholes. But they were not elected to act like assholes,and the more they do this, the less likely they will be reelected.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: BT on December 30, 2012, 02:27:37 AM
No one questions the ability of the Republican'ts to act up like a bunch of hooligans. They are assholes, and can be depended on to act like assholes. But they were not elected to act like assholes,and the more they do this, the less likely they will be reelected.

The fact of the matter is they are exercising due diligence. As is their right and their duty.

I'm certain a debriefing of the Current Secretary of State will aide them in determining whether Sen. John Kerry has the skillset necessary to hold his own on the ever changing world stage. For the ChildrenTM



Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 30, 2012, 04:20:01 AM
If they refuse to approve Kerry because of whether or not Hillary testifies, this is unrelated to the welfare of the country and is  just the Republican'ts being childish chickenshits.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: BT on December 30, 2012, 07:43:30 PM
If they refuse to approve Kerry because of whether or not Hillary testifies, this is unrelated to the welfare of the country and is  just the Republican'ts being childish chickenshits.

I seriously doubt that the GOP Senators would vote against confirming Kerry. However the timing of the final approval is completely up to them and the due diligence they exercise certainly is in the best interest of the country. Your labeling it as chickenshit petty politics has no bearing on the fact that the GOP Senators are exercising their constitutional mandate to Advise and Consent.

Deal with it!
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: BSB on December 30, 2012, 11:21:05 PM
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Is Hospitalized With Blood Clot 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was hospitalized on Sunday with a blood clot stemming from a concussion she suffered earlier this month, a State Department spokesman said.
Mrs. Clinton, who canceled most of her public events in recent weeks because of her concussion, was at a follow-up exam Sunday when doctors discovered a blood clot, according to Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton.

“She is being treated with anticoagulants and is at New York-Presbyterian Hospital so that they can monitor the medication over the next 48 hours,” Mr. Reines said in a statement.

READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/us/hillary-clinton-goes-to-hospital-after-exam-finds-a-blood-clot.html?emc=na (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/us/hillary-clinton-goes-to-hospital-after-exam-finds-a-blood-clot.html?emc=na) 
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on December 31, 2012, 12:11:16 AM
Hope it doesn't get to her lungs or brain.  That would be very bad     :(
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 31, 2012, 12:20:26 AM
Hope it doesn't get to her lungs or brain.  That would be very bad     :(

SIRS....I think they are reporting the clot is in her leg.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Plane on December 31, 2012, 01:10:05 AM
Blood clots can be deadly serious, or not serious at all.

Maybe we will be told how serious this one is , but there is no requirement .
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: BT on December 31, 2012, 01:28:41 AM
I think she is in a 28 day rehab program.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on December 31, 2012, 02:15:49 AM
Hope it doesn't get to her lungs or brain.  That would be very bad     :(

SIRS....I think they are reporting the clot is in her leg.

I would think so, as that's usually where they catch them.  The hope is that it doesn't break off and get itself lodged into the lungs or brain, as that would be very bad
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 31, 2012, 09:42:51 AM
The hope is that it doesn't break off and get itself lodged into the lungs or brain, as that would be very bad

"very bad"?.......what happens?
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 31, 2012, 10:44:38 AM
Deal with it!
------------------------------
It is my opinion. I hardly expect it to cause Mitch McConnell or Rand Paul  or either of Alabama's yokel senators to behave like competent human beings

Chickenshit petty politics is still chickenshit petty politics.

It is one's right to hump parking meters too, but that does not make it proper behavior.

The Republican'ts could all assempble wearing pinl gauze tutus and feather boas as well, but that does npot make it proper.

Nothing Hillary did or failed to do has one damned thing to do with Kerry's qualifications.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: BT on December 31, 2012, 11:04:03 AM
what Hillary did has a bearing on the questions Kerry is asked.
Let's see if he passes his audition.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on December 31, 2012, 11:33:11 AM
The hope is that it doesn't break off and get itself lodged into the lungs or brain, as that would be very bad

"very bad"?.......what happens?

If the clot moves out of the leg, into the brain, it can cause a stroke, and possibly death depending on where in the brain it lodges.  A clot that lodges into the lungs, can cause a potentially fatal Pulmonary Embolus (think of a stroke, but its to the lungs, not the brain, that becomes severely damaged)  And if you can't breath, you can't live
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 31, 2012, 12:00:55 PM
Nixon had something like this. If they know where the clot is, they can bring it under control. Even if they don't, there are some drugs that can dissolve it.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on December 31, 2012, 04:07:42 PM
Indeed....which is what she's undergoing now.  They know where the clot is, otherwise it couldn't have been diagnosed as a clot.  Now its simply a matter of dissolving it before it can potentially become deadly
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 31, 2012, 10:58:27 PM
Hillary Clinton in hospital amid
speculation of plane accident in Iran


DEBKAfile Special Report

December 31, 2012, 11:08 PM

(http://www.debka.com/dynmedia/photos/2012/12/31/big/ClintonTURKEY1.4.12.jpg)
Hillary Clinton in a recent appearance in Turkey

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's admittance to the New York-Presbyterian Hospital Monday, Dec, 31 - with a blood clot caused by concussion - gave wings to a cloud of rumor and conspiracy theories surrounding her state of health. The hospital, where Saudi King Abdullah was also treated two years ago, stated that the Secretary was receiving anti-coagulents and her condition would be assessed after 48 hours.

However, NBC television's medical correspondent Robert Bazell was skeptical about the blood clot being caused by an earlier concussion because, he said, it if were, it would not be treated with anti-coagulents. "So either it's not really related to the concussion and she's got a blood clot in her leg or something, or there's something else going on that we're not being told."

Speculation about her condition started flying about in early December, when she cancelled without notice, her participation in the Friends of Syrian forum in Marrakesh on Dec, 6. Not only was she one of the founders of this forum, but her presence was vitally needed at the time because NATO and Washington were picking up suspicious movements of the Syrian army's chemical weapons, which marked a disastrous turn in the Syrian conflict.

She was first reported to have come down with flu and, three days later, on Dec, 9, with a stomach bug.
On Dec. 10, the day before she was due to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the September 11 terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi - in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US diplomats lost there lives -   the State Department which has been heavily under fire over the episode, announced that Clinton had sustained a concussion after fainting out from dehydration.

None of the details normally released in such cases, such as when exactly she fainted, the seriousness of the concussion she suffered or how she was being treated, was offered. A State Department source was only willing to say it was "not severe."

According to another unofficial report, she was apparently working from home. No one in the office appeared to have been delegated her functions although the secretary herself has not been been absent for three weeks.

Then, Friday, Dec. 21, President Barack Obama announced the nomination of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as next Secretary of State. Clinton had made it known for some time that she intended stepping down at the start of Obama's second term of office. It was reported that she had talked to the president and Kerry, and commended the senator as having proven his mettle in a long and wide-ranging military, political and diplomatic career. Nothing was said on this occasion about her state of health.

But around Tehran and the Gulf Emirates, debkafile was already picking up insistent rumors claiming that Clinton was seriously injured while on a secret mission in the region in the first week of December. Some claimed that in the same incident, Americans in her party - advisers and security personnel - were either injured or killed. Those rumors did not say what her secret mission was.  However, the episode described occurred shortly after Dec. 1, when, as debkafile reported at the time, Obama administration officials and senior representatives of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei launched secret talks on Iran's nuclear program.

Although our sources have not identified the negotiators on either side of the table, one of the theories floating around certain capitals claimed that Hillary Clinton three weeks ago was on her way to a secret meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in regard to those negotiations. The plane carrying her from Bahrain logged its destination as Baghdad, but  is described as having changed direction in midair and headed for Ahvaz, capital of the south Iranian province of Khuzestan. There, it was said, the Iranian president was awaiting her arrival. But then the plane ran into technical trouble and made an emergency landing and that was when she was injured, according to this theory.

The unexplained death of Commander Job Price, 42, SEALs commander in Afghanistan is tied by some of the speculation to that incident. At the time, the Pentagon reported that his sudden death on Dec. 22, in Uruzgan, Afghanistan, was under investigation. It is now suggested that Commander Price was head of the security detail attached to Clinton for her Iran mission and he was one of the casualties of the accident.

In the nature of things, the impact these kinds of rumors have lingers even when they are officially denied especially given Secretary Clinton's unusually long absence from the public eye. The medical report promised Wednesday after she is monitored at the hospital for 48 hours to assess her condition, "including other issues associated with her concussion," is tensely awaited.  After that, said the hospital announcement, "her doctors will determine if any further action is required."

Clinton, known as the most traveled Secretary of State in US diplomatic history, has been in the international spotlight since 1992 when her husband Bill Clinton was elected president and she became first lady. She then served in the US Senate and later ran for the presidency against Barack Obama.

http://www.debka.com/article/22645/Hillary-Clinton-in-hospital-amid-speculation-of-plane-accident-in-Iran (http://www.debka.com/article/22645/Hillary-Clinton-in-hospital-amid-speculation-of-plane-accident-in-Iran)
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on January 03, 2013, 02:17:55 PM
Word on Drudge.......looks like dear Hillary will now testify.  You know, if the left and the Obama sychophants could have been up front and agree that it's completely appropriate for the head of the State Dept to testify on an action that has been concluded in many reports so far, that was the fault of the state dept, for what happened in Benghazi, but that she needed time to heal/recover from a plausible dangerous medical condition, most of us would have been ok with it.  take as much time as she needs to heal

The issue comes when those same sychophants try to claim some nonsense that she didn't need to testify, that it was some "non-issue", that's its just the right trying to muddy up Obama & Co....and you know, the latter may be true.  We all know that if it had been a Republican's SoS, the MSM wolves and left, would have been demanding blood, but we also all know of the ongoing double standard that the MSM applies to Republicans vs Democrats.

Point being, it now appears, barring some outbreak of war or medical deterioration on her part, that she will testify
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Plane on January 03, 2013, 08:44:47 PM
  I admit , I was surprised to learn that her medical condition was a genuine one, the timing was so coincidental.

Her testimony is going to be very important and the Bengasi set of errors is going to be very important.

I don't expect her to tell any truth , that would be unusual for her, but important anyway.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on January 03, 2013, 09:08:14 PM
Agreed
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on January 04, 2013, 03:01:38 PM
This is not very important.

Nothing useful will result from the hearings.

It is just a ploy to make dorks like Darryl Isa feel studly.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on January 04, 2013, 03:13:31 PM
This is not very important.

Nothing useful will result from the hearings.

It is just a ploy to make dorks like Darryl Isa feel studly.

LOL......like clockwork......"The issue comes when those same sychophants try to claim some nonsense that she didn't need to testify, that it was some "non-issue", that's its just the right trying to muddy up Obama & Co"
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: BT on January 04, 2013, 03:15:04 PM
Perhaps you are unaware that Issa is in the House and the hearings are in the Senate.

Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: sirs on January 04, 2013, 03:16:03 PM
D'oh
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on January 04, 2013, 05:56:34 PM
I have heard Issa pissing and moaning about this in some hearing. I suppose this is to give Prettyboy Rubio a chance to sound like he could read and stuff.

In any event, it is no big deal.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Plane on January 04, 2013, 07:49:13 PM
I like the way it is no big deal.

Pay no attention to the secretary behind the curtain.

Hey look over there, over there , something more important over THERE!
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on January 04, 2013, 10:58:41 PM
It is no big deal because we knoiw what happened: four people got killed, and why, they had insufficient intelligence. That is all there is. The hearings are just to let the GOP assholes strut about like they knew something, which they do not.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: BT on January 04, 2013, 11:04:19 PM
It is no big deal because we knoiw what happened: four people got killed, and why, they had insufficient intelligence. That is all there is. The hearings are just to let the GOP assholes strut about like they knew something, which they do not.

If there is nothing there then the dems have nothing to fear.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: Plane on January 04, 2013, 11:23:35 PM
  I don't see the cover up effort being explained very well.
Title: Re: No Clinton?.....then no Kerry
Post by: BT on January 04, 2013, 11:53:48 PM
  I don't see the cover up effort being explained very well.

The coverup was pre-election. We are in the stonewall stage.

Can't we just moveon.